I applaud his genius, but I do not think this fulfills his need of "the perfect woman". I also feel weird that all of those people she met have "hurt" her in some fashion (re: her response). Does she remember that as well? What would a creation like this lead to?

I saw this on the TV news yesterday, so it's made the mainstream (meaning less internety) media as well. The newscaster gave a warning before the segment, something like "some people may be offended by the content of this report."

DaddyCatALSO, I think the linked article is too content free to be truly creepy....but the other links show the whole concept to be genuinely creepy, in part because of the 'dialogue' \ 'relationship' with the human (ie as i mentioned in my previous post) :-(

Well, where's my submissive man-bot that I welcome others to kick between the legs so they can see that the man-bot detects it? I bet it would fill the room... all lined up to freely kick someone in the nads.

And then I want my man-bot to tell me how much he loves me and that only real men cry.

Aiko doesn't need holidays, food or rest, and will work almost 24 hours a day. She is the perfect woman.

The perfect women works all day and has no personal needs or desires. Yeah huh, suuuuuuure.

She still can't walk, however.

His pretty can't escape, huh?

So this creation makes me think there needs to be a whole new exploratory area of pyschotherapy in the future entitled 'Me and My Robot: Inadequacy and Coping Methods.' Is anyone else getting some post-apocalyptic Terminator flashes for this creation? People will look back on Judgment Day and say, "This all started with a guy who made himself a girlfriend." Is it wrong that I'd find this less creepy if he'd made himself a killing machine?

The irony of this is, for my final exam we had to cover a topic with this question: If robots existed in the Untied States, would they be entitled to the same human rights we have? While this is fascinating on a technological level, it also brings up some interesting (and slightly disturbing) issues.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

And also, ironically, one of the stories we read for that class was Asimov's "Robbie".

Ah the classics, you just know that when the cylons and the terminators get together for drinks and oil change anyone mentioning Asimov or the laws of robotics gets a really big laugh, probably have to buy the next round too.

I just watched the youtube video of Aiko and a number of thoughts occured to me.

First, that while this man's genius is admirable the disturbing factor for me comes from his interview where he equates Aiko's abilities with the "perfect woman". If he didn't have such a disturbing view of his creation, I'd probably be applauding his efforts. But as it is, it's damned unsettling.

Second, the behavior Aiko elicits from those at the Ontario convention is very disturbing. If and when a more advanced Artificial Intelligence is created, will it be so carelessly abused just for humanity's curiosity? The way the people clustered around Aiko, slapping and even punching her face, was an ugly look at humanity's potential for selfish cruelty. That youtube video was all about Aiko expressing pain ("Stop hitting my face, you're hurting me"). It's very disturbing to witness the abuse of a creation made in the image of a person, some other that makes it less worthy of respect.

As for all the artistic mediums we've seen this topic discussed (Terminator; T:TSCC; A.I.; I, Robot; Bicentennial Man; Short Circuit), it NEVER ends well for those who insist on treating AI as robots (no rights, no considerations). (Sorry for no inclusion of Cylons, but I haven't seen BSG yet.)

My thinking is if you're going to design AI to be as human-like as possible, you need to be open to the idea that these "robots" will one day demand rights & recognition.

My thinking is if you're going to design AI to be as human-like as possible, you need to be open to the idea that these "robots" will one day demand rights & recognition.

As little as I honestly respect real AI researchers in terms of their wildest, creating sentient minds, aims, I'd never call this a real AI project. I think we might be lucky that this person thinks he can create a girlfriend through machinery, rather than by altering a real person. 'Cause that's happened.

Then again, I don't know? Maybe he is not all that socially maladjusted. I mean, what better way to get people talking than to put a "human" face, much less a female one, on a robot? If it had been shaped like an erector set with camera lenses for eyes and blinking red lights for a mouth, I doubt mainstream media (television) would have run with it. Even if it could do all the same things with facial recognition and sensory response, etc. it probably still wouldn't have made the news. He has created much more of an uproar by having the bot take the shape of a woman and presenting her as "perfect", while following up with what a lot of people would probably consider somewhat inflammatory remarks about the nature of what makes a woman "perfect" in his opinion.

Meh. There is probably some chauvinistic venture capitalist knocking down his door as we speak.

I agree that the 'Whedonverse' link is tenuous at best, but needless this is a fascinating topic that has had some very interesting responses from the world at large.

Scary and creepy as it seems (did he really refer to a vagina as a 'down there'? GULP!), the rise of the 'robot girlfriend' is the next logical AI move, especially given the explosion of manga and hentai since the dawn of tha' interwebs.
It's almost a natural progression when you think of it- reproductive technology easily allows women to have babies without a 'real man' present, so naturally, some men will seek to eliminate 'real women' from their lives. (Next move- an incubator that can grow and birth babies!)

Still, no amount of programming can account for a real, warm, heartfelt hug from another human, or THAT moment when the one you love says something so utterly, completely unexpected, that you realise why you fell in love with them in the first place.

In the realm of fantasy, sexual psychology, and wish realization, I suppose this is no different than the "furries," or extreme tattooing and piercing. The Real Doll (or is it RealDoll) already exists, and it is made to be a sexual partner (though perhaps even creepier, it is totally passive - unmechanized). I'm not at all convinced this guy isn't using his doll for that purpose. Way back when Westworld exemplified the dangers of this.

Thanks for the clarifications, Rosalind and everyone else, I amend my statement. Yeeesh.

And "down there" at first sturck me as objectively descriptive but as soem of you've mentioned, it's a clumsy euphemism. If he wanted to avoid a spepcific statement, why didn't he just go fully Victorian and say "her own places" like I did once (well, I used "their") in a W&T fic?

I might think it's okay if the technology were as advanced as in Westworld, or even in Creation of the Humanoids, but not at this point. "I've heard that your sister is in rapport."

And I do not plan on asking anyone in my office to "butter my toast" anytime soon...or late. A guy like this has to know what that sounds like.

(I started using the term "content-free" back in the 90s when I thought some of my fellow evangelicals were making too much fuss over Married, With Children.)

While it's normal for us to be disturbed by the instances where people are poking and prodding her (it) and she's (it's) telling them to stop or that it hurts, it's important to remember that she (it) isn't actually feeling pain. It's a machine that's been programmed to say that in response to its arm sensors being stimulated.

It's really hard to not describe it with gender pronouns, but I guess it's okay to since it's a character. If I can play video games and recognize the stars of that media as having distinct genders, I guess it's okay to refer to this thing as a "she" too. It just feels really weird to do that, because it/she sure doesn't have much character.

Despite all the sci-fi stories that've explored what could go wrong (most recently Wall-E), I'm pretty sure we're a long way off from the advancements needed to get these things to the point where they're complex enough, if it's even possible, where they could malfunction/rebel/demand rights. I suppose if they manufacture really mobile, potentially lethal versions of them in my lifetime (I know they already have drone planes and a few other weapons in the works), even if the robot itself isn't messing up/developing on its own, a human being could still override and abuse them (use them against other humans) or infect them with a computer virus or something.

I won't make any judgement if the dude's using it for sex too, the life-size doll fetish already exists. I guess I'd have a little more respect for him if he's at least dated a lot and not found what he's looking for or been burned really badly or something to the point where he's this desperate. The subservient Japanese schoolgirl/maid/wallflower look that he's given her/it is creepy though. And I mean no disrespect if you're from Japan and those outfits (aside from the Cosplay one) are common dress, this is just coming from my admittedly limited North American perspective.

The social implications are interesting to dissect/predict, but any worries about this leading to something that will demand rights or spell the downfall of humanity through new kinds of wars or replacement, or that it's anything more than a hunk of metal that's been programmed to provoke an emotional response in us despite the fact that it has no emotions itself, not even at a level that many animals do, is just hysterics at this point, IMO.

One thing I can't quite pull away from is that it looks human and so even tho it isn't feeling anything people are feeling prompted to do things that would be mean if done to a real person. Perhaps you want to touch it but you don't have to touch it that way. It doesn't have to signify anything about the person doing it, but it could.

Well, I think the Terminator references were coming from a joking tone (I know mine was). My concern is the creation of something that looks like a woman (and will presumably look even more life-like as technology progresses) and that "it" will be treated as a replacement for egalitarian, human interaction. I think it's fair to be concerned with how people are treating this creation and what it may mean for future society.

I think it's fair to be concerned with how people are treating this creation and what it may mean for future society.

I don't think the issue is whether or not it raises interesting or concerning questions. I think the issue was whether or not freaking out over civil rights for robots or the downfall of humanity might not be a little ludicrously premature.

Ah, but if everyone failed to explore those hypotheticals then we would never have such entertaining post-Apocalyptic fictional works like Terminator, the Matrix, AI and Blade Runner.

I guess I missed the 'freaking out' tone. I was reading it more as negative what-ifs resulting from this type of technological advance. Speculating running rampant into even extreme possibilities is still just speculation in my book.